This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is the calendar on the top right in Current events supposed to be clickable ? Ditto for August 2004. -- PFHLai 04:37, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Hello Current Events people! (I seldom edit this). I think we need to categorize a lot of the events that happen during the year. I know that we already do this ( Category:2004 in sports etc), but we are perhaps not doing it consequently. I've created the category Category:Conflicts in 2004 and I wonder what you think of this. I want Category:2004 to cover "What happened in 2004?". Without conflicts and stuff like that, it lacks major parts. Other missing things seem to be the US Presidential campaign, which I can't find from the 2004 category. Thus we might need Category:2004 in politics etc. [[User:Sverdrup| ❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What will it take to have a web feed for the current events page or for the wikipedia home page?
Lot of people use RSS to stay updated with the latest news. The latest version of Firefox has enhanced support for syndication! Sridev 20:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I realize there is a Current sports events page, but not everyone is a sport nut and would be going there. Does anything qualify as important enough a sports event to be listed on main Current Events?
e.g., the 2004 World Cup of Hockey final is Ice Hockey's biggest story of the year, excepting perhaps the Stanley Cup final. Is two lines on CE too much?
Radagast 03:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Much Wikipedian rewriting of AP, Guardian and other news stories slants the coverage even more in favor of the rebels than those anti-US sources had already slanted the stories. This has got to stop.
Wikipedia news coverage should not be slanted in ANY direction.
Don't argue your points in news stories. Don't omit one side and emphasize another side, especially when the source you are quoting includes both sides.
The US point of view is that they are liberating an oppressed Iraqi populace from a bloodthirsty, power-mad dictator. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.
The rebels' point of view as that they are fighting against an imperial takeover aimed at subjugating an independent Iraqi populace for selfish and nationalistic purposes. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.
News stories tend to play up the "rebels vs. US" angle. They are quick to quote local witnesses who insinuate that the US is killing civilians wantonly in a war of aggression; this bolsters the argument that the US is wrong. Please note that Wikipedia must not endorse or oppose this argument.
If you want to argue that the US is guilty of war crimes, start a blog. Or write a general article which QUOTES prominent sources as making this argument. But don't sneak it into news stories. I'm asking you, please. -- Uncle Ed 17:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The following news story has an anti-Israeli bias:
If some advocate believes that Israel is killing "Palestinians" without concern for international law or moral considerations, we should include a comment attributed to that source, like:
I think the best way to describe armed violence is to mention who fired the first shot, like this:
Please think carefully about the impression your writing makes, and try hard to avoid letting bias creep in. -- Uncle Ed 14:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying the story is okay because "returned fire" clearly says that the Israeli observation post was attacked first? Or are you saying that the story is okay because it (correctly) gives the impression that the observation post fired the first shot?
Or are you really saying that you want Wikipedia to endorse the POV that Israel is an "aggressor", so that every attack by Palestinian Arabs on Israel soldiers is a "response" (i.e., justified in self-defense) while every atttack by Israli soldiers on Palestinian Arabs (armed or unarmed) is "bad"?
If so, please recall that NPOV forbids the Wikipedia to endorse or reject any controversial view. -- Uncle Ed 17:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The authoritative Lancet medical publication said that more than 100.000 Iraqi were killed, among which half are children and women. How do you categorize this fact??
How's this for phrasing it without bias (without my knowing anything other than what is posted above):
"Two Palestinians and an Israeli soldier were killed in a firefight near an Israeli observation post in the northern Gaza strip. Israeli troops have been engaged in in that part of th Gaza strip since September 29."
Ok, Could someone kindly define 'News'. Apparently the news Networks are completely wrong in their Definitions! The Lead story on Google's news is The reaction to the US debates, but apparently thats not worthy of Wikipedia, and the BBC is leading with Spain approves gay marriage bill, but likewise, apparently, thats not newsworthy enough for Wikipedia either. So what is te definition of News for Wikipedia, because from what I've read both stories are newsworthy.. Maybe I'm wrong.
This is a two part question:
The vaccine crisis needs to be listed here, but I think that article needs a lot more detail before we do so. I'm interested in opinions. Pakaran . 18:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article for Jacques Derrida mentions October 8 as his time of death, while it is October 9 on this page. Which is correct? roozbeh 22:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've reversed the order of the "Upcoming elections" section on the right. Now all dated sections are ordered such that the first item is nearest to today. This matches the approach taken on current sports events, and seems more natural to me overall. -- Avaragado 22:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting a weird formatting problem - square brackets are being replaced by spaces, breaking wikilinks. Is anyone else experiencing this? -- ChrisO 12:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why isn't the beginning of Ramadan worthy of a Current events piece? It made news in every Major News Organisation, Surely it's worth of line here.
Cut from article:
Article says that the strike happened. But this is just one POV, even if Reuters is being honest.
The news is not that the event DID happen, but that someone CLAIMED it happened. Wikipedia should not pass on disputed reports uncritically.
This news blurb should neither side with the US (which said no strike occurred) nor with the other source (which said a strike occurred).
Let's revise this capsule story so that it is NEUTRAL. I leave this as an exercise for the student. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How do people feel about linking to stubs from Current Events? -- ChrisO 16:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See the proposal at m:Wikinews, the discussion at m:Talk:Wikinews, and the vote on the proposal page. +sj + 09:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a quick visual cue indicating the source: (fair use images removed) --[[User:Ctrl build| Ctrl_build talk 15px|]] 02:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:Ctrl build| Ctrl_build talk 03:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
support | objection |
cool factor | slow down factor |
easy sources | ugly |
unique from other sites | non-matching |
extendable to other items, like national flags | there are a very large number of news companies covered, so that's a large number of sources, so a lot of logos to keep track of |
| logos don't link to article/source/page- they link to the image page |
| wikipedia is not a news site |
| copywrite issues |
| its like the google minipicture but in reverse |
A post about the October 29, 2004 Lancet report which estimated civilian casaulties in Iraq at 100,000 contained quotes which were not from the actual report or linked article.
The Lancet, British medical journal, says that the "political and military failure" of what it terms "democratic imperialism" has astronomicaly increased the civilian death rate in Iraq.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the study, it used a small sample although random. However, besides the quotations not being in the actual study or linked article, they were taken out of context. A seperate commentary publication by the editor stated "democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer." If the study comes to conclusions that are much higher than other unofficial estimates, say so. But I think that taking quotes out of context violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states all sides of a dispute should be represented fairly. - Dejitarob 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Half a mo' while I review the protetected page policy. I might have to undo all my chinges --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:41, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Heck, looks like a gray area to me. Not bad enough to get me de-sysopped, but I guess I better 'unprotect' the current events page before I get into deeper trouble. Sorry, Al. Sorry, Knight. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:44, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
<< The journal Nature reports a decline in krill population in the Antarctic since the 1970s, including a reduction of 80% in one area. >>
Is this really all that newsworthy? The story isn't all that informative. Sure it's important to the global environment, but can't we just lump it in with other aspects of global warming? TimothyPilgrim 20:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong. If one side is reporting something doesn't the NPOV policy mean that the party and the claim needs to be written as such? I am specifically referring to:
Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing medical staff and patients. A 9 year old boy died because of lack of medical assistance after he was hit by shrapnel in what the parents thought was a seperate airstrike [2]... Iraqi and US forces captured a mosque in Northwest Falluja that was being used as an arms depot [3]
Before it was reverted, I changed this to: Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing staff and patients, and in a seperate airstrike, a 9 year old boy... Iraqi and U.S. forces capture a mosque in northwest Falluja which they say was used as an arms depot and insurgent meeting place.
There have been no confirmations that a boy was hit by a U.S. airstrike or that he even died, or a mosque was used as a insurgent stagging area. Information is extremely difficult to verify during conflict and therefore is usually only reported by one party, especially casaulties. Many times another party has even came out and denied reports, as with the U.S. saying an al-Zarqawi operative was reporting propaganda in Falluja.
[ [4] WBAL Radio]
Michael Phelps was arrested for DUI.
Sorry about that. I'm tired and I clicked the wrong button when I was checking out vandalism :( my bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is a minor revert war going in between an anon's version:
and my version:
Let me make this clear: I will not challenge a further revert. I am doing this to ask a question: The latter simply describes the event. What the former does is describes the event, then synopsizes the BBC article. The civilian casualties, or possible lack thereof, does not seem to be a "Current event" and doesn't belong in that entry. It is there only because the BBC article mentions it.
What is the proper format for this? -- Golbez 11:08, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
I thought it perfectly NPOV. Anyone who wanted to know more could click the BBC link. There is a lot of information on the site that was either irrelevant or had been covered in previous current event posts (like the prevention of aid workers etc.) -- Martin TB 11:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)Falluja rebels "make last stand" as US forces pound pockets of determined insurgents in the Iraqi city in the second week of fighting. BBC.
Why is it that most of the news sources we use are either BBC or CNN? There are plenty of other good, respectable news outlets that don't use initials, and aren't either international media conglomerates or state-hegemonous outlets. Just a grievance of mine (although I admit my guilt on this offense). -- The King Of Gondor (call me Dale) 16:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Um, am I the only one who thinks that a grilled cheese sandwich with a coincidental likeness of the Virgin Mary is not worthy of current event status? I'll remove it for now, unless others feel a lunch is definitely a good current event. -- The KoG | (talk) 21:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I removed this entry: Human evolution: Long distance running was crucial in determining the form of the human body according to Dennis Bramble of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Nature)
This story is about a new theory so I do not believe it should be posted. I could see otherwise maybe if it was detailing the conclusion of a new study under certain circumstances. - Dejitarob 22:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jewbacca, re todays current events;
Dejitarob, in what way is the FT article 'obviously biased'? Is the Financial Times not a journalistic source? It's about the only thing I've seen written that goes beyond "crowds in Kiev", and actually outlines the people and power balances in the current political situation. — Michael Z. 22:25, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
Don't want to be overly critical - but Dan Rather looks a pretty parochial choice as one of the three main news stories on the main page today. A newsreader on a US channel resigning?? Plenty of us have never heard of him (including me). How about one of these? - the Russian scientist convicted of spying for China, Iran's statement on nuclear dismantling, Pakistan leader in talks in Kashmir etc, Chirac making first visit to Libya since 1951. Admittedly, CNN is just as bad and gives this quite a big billing today too. But other channels give a better example (e.g. BBC Online). If wikipedia has ambitions to draw in as wide a possible a range of readers and contributors across the world then I think it sends slightly the wrong signal. What do people think? -- Cjnm 11:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this is newsworthy enough. Lynchings of Policemen Ignite Outrage at Violence in Mexico New York Times - 1 hour ago MEXICO CITY, Nov. 24 - This city seemed in a state of shock on Wednesday as people struggled to come to grips with the scenes of lawlessness captured on television as an angry mob lynched two police officers ...
Pretty much Alaskan officials are giving out permits for Teams members of TWO, to practice in Aerial hunting, where one flys a helicopter while the other shoots. This is to address the issue of wolves becoming a threat - yet while in the lower 48 states in America, we are in danger of loosing the wolf population - why can't we capture them north and bring them down south?
Do you think this story is a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and if so, where can if be placed?
PEACE
RoboAction 23:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is the calendar on the top right in Current events supposed to be clickable ? Ditto for August 2004. -- PFHLai 04:37, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
Hello Current Events people! (I seldom edit this). I think we need to categorize a lot of the events that happen during the year. I know that we already do this ( Category:2004 in sports etc), but we are perhaps not doing it consequently. I've created the category Category:Conflicts in 2004 and I wonder what you think of this. I want Category:2004 to cover "What happened in 2004?". Without conflicts and stuff like that, it lacks major parts. Other missing things seem to be the US Presidential campaign, which I can't find from the 2004 category. Thus we might need Category:2004 in politics etc. [[User:Sverdrup| ❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What will it take to have a web feed for the current events page or for the wikipedia home page?
Lot of people use RSS to stay updated with the latest news. The latest version of Firefox has enhanced support for syndication! Sridev 20:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I realize there is a Current sports events page, but not everyone is a sport nut and would be going there. Does anything qualify as important enough a sports event to be listed on main Current Events?
e.g., the 2004 World Cup of Hockey final is Ice Hockey's biggest story of the year, excepting perhaps the Stanley Cup final. Is two lines on CE too much?
Radagast 03:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Much Wikipedian rewriting of AP, Guardian and other news stories slants the coverage even more in favor of the rebels than those anti-US sources had already slanted the stories. This has got to stop.
Wikipedia news coverage should not be slanted in ANY direction.
Don't argue your points in news stories. Don't omit one side and emphasize another side, especially when the source you are quoting includes both sides.
The US point of view is that they are liberating an oppressed Iraqi populace from a bloodthirsty, power-mad dictator. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.
The rebels' point of view as that they are fighting against an imperial takeover aimed at subjugating an independent Iraqi populace for selfish and nationalistic purposes. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.
News stories tend to play up the "rebels vs. US" angle. They are quick to quote local witnesses who insinuate that the US is killing civilians wantonly in a war of aggression; this bolsters the argument that the US is wrong. Please note that Wikipedia must not endorse or oppose this argument.
If you want to argue that the US is guilty of war crimes, start a blog. Or write a general article which QUOTES prominent sources as making this argument. But don't sneak it into news stories. I'm asking you, please. -- Uncle Ed 17:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The following news story has an anti-Israeli bias:
If some advocate believes that Israel is killing "Palestinians" without concern for international law or moral considerations, we should include a comment attributed to that source, like:
I think the best way to describe armed violence is to mention who fired the first shot, like this:
Please think carefully about the impression your writing makes, and try hard to avoid letting bias creep in. -- Uncle Ed 14:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you saying the story is okay because "returned fire" clearly says that the Israeli observation post was attacked first? Or are you saying that the story is okay because it (correctly) gives the impression that the observation post fired the first shot?
Or are you really saying that you want Wikipedia to endorse the POV that Israel is an "aggressor", so that every attack by Palestinian Arabs on Israel soldiers is a "response" (i.e., justified in self-defense) while every atttack by Israli soldiers on Palestinian Arabs (armed or unarmed) is "bad"?
If so, please recall that NPOV forbids the Wikipedia to endorse or reject any controversial view. -- Uncle Ed 17:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The authoritative Lancet medical publication said that more than 100.000 Iraqi were killed, among which half are children and women. How do you categorize this fact??
How's this for phrasing it without bias (without my knowing anything other than what is posted above):
"Two Palestinians and an Israeli soldier were killed in a firefight near an Israeli observation post in the northern Gaza strip. Israeli troops have been engaged in in that part of th Gaza strip since September 29."
Ok, Could someone kindly define 'News'. Apparently the news Networks are completely wrong in their Definitions! The Lead story on Google's news is The reaction to the US debates, but apparently thats not worthy of Wikipedia, and the BBC is leading with Spain approves gay marriage bill, but likewise, apparently, thats not newsworthy enough for Wikipedia either. So what is te definition of News for Wikipedia, because from what I've read both stories are newsworthy.. Maybe I'm wrong.
This is a two part question:
The vaccine crisis needs to be listed here, but I think that article needs a lot more detail before we do so. I'm interested in opinions. Pakaran . 18:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The article for Jacques Derrida mentions October 8 as his time of death, while it is October 9 on this page. Which is correct? roozbeh 22:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I've reversed the order of the "Upcoming elections" section on the right. Now all dated sections are ordered such that the first item is nearest to today. This matches the approach taken on current sports events, and seems more natural to me overall. -- Avaragado 22:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm getting a weird formatting problem - square brackets are being replaced by spaces, breaking wikilinks. Is anyone else experiencing this? -- ChrisO 12:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why isn't the beginning of Ramadan worthy of a Current events piece? It made news in every Major News Organisation, Surely it's worth of line here.
Cut from article:
Article says that the strike happened. But this is just one POV, even if Reuters is being honest.
The news is not that the event DID happen, but that someone CLAIMED it happened. Wikipedia should not pass on disputed reports uncritically.
This news blurb should neither side with the US (which said no strike occurred) nor with the other source (which said a strike occurred).
Let's revise this capsule story so that it is NEUTRAL. I leave this as an exercise for the student. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How do people feel about linking to stubs from Current Events? -- ChrisO 16:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See the proposal at m:Wikinews, the discussion at m:Talk:Wikinews, and the vote on the proposal page. +sj + 09:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a quick visual cue indicating the source: (fair use images removed) --[[User:Ctrl build| Ctrl_build talk 15px|]] 02:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
--[[User:Ctrl build| Ctrl_build talk 03:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
support | objection |
cool factor | slow down factor |
easy sources | ugly |
unique from other sites | non-matching |
extendable to other items, like national flags | there are a very large number of news companies covered, so that's a large number of sources, so a lot of logos to keep track of |
| logos don't link to article/source/page- they link to the image page |
| wikipedia is not a news site |
| copywrite issues |
| its like the google minipicture but in reverse |
A post about the October 29, 2004 Lancet report which estimated civilian casaulties in Iraq at 100,000 contained quotes which were not from the actual report or linked article.
The Lancet, British medical journal, says that the "political and military failure" of what it terms "democratic imperialism" has astronomicaly increased the civilian death rate in Iraq.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the study, it used a small sample although random. However, besides the quotations not being in the actual study or linked article, they were taken out of context. A seperate commentary publication by the editor stated "democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer." If the study comes to conclusions that are much higher than other unofficial estimates, say so. But I think that taking quotes out of context violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states all sides of a dispute should be represented fairly. - Dejitarob 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Half a mo' while I review the protetected page policy. I might have to undo all my chinges --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:41, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Heck, looks like a gray area to me. Not bad enough to get me de-sysopped, but I guess I better 'unprotect' the current events page before I get into deeper trouble. Sorry, Al. Sorry, Knight. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:44, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
<< The journal Nature reports a decline in krill population in the Antarctic since the 1970s, including a reduction of 80% in one area. >>
Is this really all that newsworthy? The story isn't all that informative. Sure it's important to the global environment, but can't we just lump it in with other aspects of global warming? TimothyPilgrim 20:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Please correct me if I am wrong. If one side is reporting something doesn't the NPOV policy mean that the party and the claim needs to be written as such? I am specifically referring to:
Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing medical staff and patients. A 9 year old boy died because of lack of medical assistance after he was hit by shrapnel in what the parents thought was a seperate airstrike [2]... Iraqi and US forces captured a mosque in Northwest Falluja that was being used as an arms depot [3]
Before it was reverted, I changed this to: Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing staff and patients, and in a seperate airstrike, a 9 year old boy... Iraqi and U.S. forces capture a mosque in northwest Falluja which they say was used as an arms depot and insurgent meeting place.
There have been no confirmations that a boy was hit by a U.S. airstrike or that he even died, or a mosque was used as a insurgent stagging area. Information is extremely difficult to verify during conflict and therefore is usually only reported by one party, especially casaulties. Many times another party has even came out and denied reports, as with the U.S. saying an al-Zarqawi operative was reporting propaganda in Falluja.
[ [4] WBAL Radio]
Michael Phelps was arrested for DUI.
Sorry about that. I'm tired and I clicked the wrong button when I was checking out vandalism :( my bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is a minor revert war going in between an anon's version:
and my version:
Let me make this clear: I will not challenge a further revert. I am doing this to ask a question: The latter simply describes the event. What the former does is describes the event, then synopsizes the BBC article. The civilian casualties, or possible lack thereof, does not seem to be a "Current event" and doesn't belong in that entry. It is there only because the BBC article mentions it.
What is the proper format for this? -- Golbez 11:08, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
I thought it perfectly NPOV. Anyone who wanted to know more could click the BBC link. There is a lot of information on the site that was either irrelevant or had been covered in previous current event posts (like the prevention of aid workers etc.) -- Martin TB 11:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)Falluja rebels "make last stand" as US forces pound pockets of determined insurgents in the Iraqi city in the second week of fighting. BBC.
Why is it that most of the news sources we use are either BBC or CNN? There are plenty of other good, respectable news outlets that don't use initials, and aren't either international media conglomerates or state-hegemonous outlets. Just a grievance of mine (although I admit my guilt on this offense). -- The King Of Gondor (call me Dale) 16:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Um, am I the only one who thinks that a grilled cheese sandwich with a coincidental likeness of the Virgin Mary is not worthy of current event status? I'll remove it for now, unless others feel a lunch is definitely a good current event. -- The KoG | (talk) 21:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I removed this entry: Human evolution: Long distance running was crucial in determining the form of the human body according to Dennis Bramble of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Nature)
This story is about a new theory so I do not believe it should be posted. I could see otherwise maybe if it was detailing the conclusion of a new study under certain circumstances. - Dejitarob 22:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Jewbacca, re todays current events;
Dejitarob, in what way is the FT article 'obviously biased'? Is the Financial Times not a journalistic source? It's about the only thing I've seen written that goes beyond "crowds in Kiev", and actually outlines the people and power balances in the current political situation. — Michael Z. 22:25, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
Don't want to be overly critical - but Dan Rather looks a pretty parochial choice as one of the three main news stories on the main page today. A newsreader on a US channel resigning?? Plenty of us have never heard of him (including me). How about one of these? - the Russian scientist convicted of spying for China, Iran's statement on nuclear dismantling, Pakistan leader in talks in Kashmir etc, Chirac making first visit to Libya since 1951. Admittedly, CNN is just as bad and gives this quite a big billing today too. But other channels give a better example (e.g. BBC Online). If wikipedia has ambitions to draw in as wide a possible a range of readers and contributors across the world then I think it sends slightly the wrong signal. What do people think? -- Cjnm 11:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this is newsworthy enough. Lynchings of Policemen Ignite Outrage at Violence in Mexico New York Times - 1 hour ago MEXICO CITY, Nov. 24 - This city seemed in a state of shock on Wednesday as people struggled to come to grips with the scenes of lawlessness captured on television as an angry mob lynched two police officers ...
Pretty much Alaskan officials are giving out permits for Teams members of TWO, to practice in Aerial hunting, where one flys a helicopter while the other shoots. This is to address the issue of wolves becoming a threat - yet while in the lower 48 states in America, we are in danger of loosing the wolf population - why can't we capture them north and bring them down south?
Do you think this story is a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and if so, where can if be placed?
PEACE
RoboAction 23:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)